Governor Dannel Malloy should ask Mayor Bill Finch how he did it.
The state budget has passed. Malloy has signed it. How does he go about securing $1 billion in savings for each of the next two years from the labor force that elected him? And if the savings don’t come, how many will he lay off? And what additional impact will it have on cities such as Bridgeport who’ve been saved a lot of pain by Malloy’s budget assuming the state worker concessions are made? Take Bridgeport out of the mix and Malloy isn’t governor. Say the same for New Haven. And Hartford.
A spokesman for the state employees bargaining unit adds his spin:
“But it’s not fair or realistic to expect middle-class people who happen to work for the state to each cut $22,000 a year from our family annual budgets. Especially when we, like all middle class families, are already paying 10% of our income in state and local taxes, while millionaires are only paying 5% of their income and some of our largest corporations are paying little or no taxes at all.”
It’s interesting that so far the state is actually following Bridgeport’s labor relations lead. Mayor Bill Finch and the City Council approved a budget last year that required millions in union concessions. There was a lot of teeth-gnashing and prehistoric noises coming from both sides. Some unions claimed the mayor and his labor relations team led by City Council President Tom McCarthy didn’t fight fair, that they artificially inflated a deficit to force the concessions. Finch and Big Mac said hey, give us what we want and we won’t lay you off. Some were let go, and then some brought back as the city received concessions. Meanwhile the city has borrowed millions to pay operating expenses, placed City Hall for sale, put off pension payments, borrowed millions more for capital improvements. Yet the unions say nothing publicly. Have they given up the fight?
Meanwhile State Rep. Auden Grogins, the Blonde Banshee from Black Rock, isn’t wasting any time informing constituents about her role in minimizing the state budget tax impact. From Grogins:
TOUGH BUDGET MINIMIZES NEGATIVE TAX IMPACT AND FULLY FUNDS BRIDGEPORT
Auden: Budget eliminates gas tax, reduces state indebtedness and does not rely on borrowing
Hartford – State Representative Auden Grogins (D-Bridgeport) is pleased to announce that her hard work was a major contributing factor this session in the successful passage of a state budget where Bridgeport residents are clear winners.
“This budget contains fewer taxes and less spending than the Governor’s original proposal and has key provisions that protect taxpayers in Bridgeport and across the state,” Rep. Grogins said.
As a result of a concerted effort by Rep. Grogins and colleagues, the state budget includes a restored property tax credit of $300, the elimination of a proposed gas tax increase, funding for the Beardsley Zoo and Discovery Museum and full funding for education. The budget also restores numerous tax exemptions on services including, but not limited to, barber and beauty services, car washes, aviation services, and boat repairs.
“We were able to keep municipalities fully funded, allowing local governing bodies to rely on those funds as they work on their budgets and protecting taxpayers from increases in their property taxes,” Rep. Grogins said.
Auden Grogins is the state representative for the 129th Assembly District in Bridgeport. She also serves on the Education and Judiciary Committees of the General Assembly.
Did She or Didn’t She?
Did the Black Rock Banshee vote on a moratorium for Bridgeport not funding its pension???
Only her hairdresser knows 🙂
Finch’s campaign promises 2011.
1. $600 tax credit. (This time I mean it!)
2. Promise to not have the cops take my wife home from the bar as they should be patrolling the streets instead.
3. No take-home cars. Except for half the police department. The Chief can still live near Danbury and drive his city-owned Escalade which requires $300 a week to fill up.
4. No new hires, except those I owe political favors too. *Requires layoffs first.
5. Will work on my attitude towards UB.
6. Will make all pension contributions.
7. Will not let my son make any derogatory and sexist music videos. At least not again anyway.
7. Will now uncross my fingers from behind my back.
btw … what number comes after 7? I’m used to fuzzy math.
*** It’s tit for tat when it comes to budget concessions for the city or state, no? Save on one end, only to spend more on the other leaving a bigger gap four years later. Only thing learned @ the end will be how to improve the quality of political smoke & mirrors to fool the public. *** FORGETABOUTIT ***
How many “take-home cars” are there in use currently? I thought the mayor said there should be only three.
How many? Park on the side of route 8 at 5pm and watch the parade of city cars going home any day you choose. You’ll lose count.
Okay, but I mean is there any ballpark idea? Are there 5, 10, 20, 50 take-home cars? According to Bridgeport city statute, they are supposed to indicate on the car it is a city-owned take-home car. Do they do that? Who would oversee to see things like that are done?
Here is my best guess. The PD alone has roughly 15-20. City Attorney’s has at least 2. Figure the two city halls must have another 15 or so. Add the FD to that and you have easily upwards of 50-plus.
Maybe they should have more take-home cars, one for every city employee. Right? Not fair to those people. How many city employees are there?
Call CitiStat and ask how many Ford Escapes from the mayor’s cabinet are taken home with NON-BPT license plates. They would have that info and VIN #s.
Watching the Mayor at work and comparing the actions to the statements is very interesting. Now the last I heard, the Mayor may have said something about getting down to three take-home autos for the entire City at some point.
Obviously we are not there now, and City policy guided by Mayor Finch for 3.5 years and the Mario Machine for previous years beyond 10 have widened the expense to taxpayers. The fact the Mayor has not been decisive (as might be required in an emergency) and shut the program down immediately is telling about his sense of urgency.
Inaction doesn’t hurt him in the first place, and he doesn’t see the City as I do in a financial emergency. However when you look at the City burden from commitments in two special areas, Pension Plan A and OPEB, you will determine Finch has faced the problem and “flinched.” One sees he would rather duck OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE and TRANSPARENT behavior in this regard. Perhaps we can look at the words used one year ago by Mark Feeney in his pleading to the State about the State of our City finances and see the difference between a statement begging relief from State OPM and Treasurer and a leadership group providing raises to themselves each year, while underwater mortgages, personal bankruptcies, loss of jobs and business closings for people without City jobs are ongoing.
One footnote to continuing research on the Pension Plan A burden: looking at the Bond one sees it has an interest rate in excess of 7%. I am not an expert on bonds but I can ask for help and did. I needed to secure the CUSIP number for that bond issue and happened to ask someone who should know. Couldn’t get an answer from that person because that person is a “vendor” of professional services to the City and VENDORS HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY TO PROVIDE NO INFORMATION TO INQUIRING MINDS ABOUT CITY BUSINESS I learned. Now asking for a CUSIP number seems very innocent, but the vendor involved reported it to a person in the City who was surprised by my “audacity” at contacting a “vendor.”
Bit of an overstatement (or something else) I felt and responded that as a “taxpayer” I was unaware of our City vendor policy never having been previously educated in this regard. I also have learned about the practice of OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE and TRANSPARENT once again. I felt having to obtain this innocent number through an FOI request to the City Attorney was overkill, so I found a private resource.
Today I have the CUSIP number (108151T76) and wonder what language is in the document or State law that perhaps has prevented the City from seeking a lower interest rate on the money we owe. Wouldn’t it be painfully humorous if these Bonds cannot be refunded while the actuarial value of the funds sits at a lower level than called for??? Does anybody have info on this at hand or even a guess as to why this large amount of bonding hasn’t gone to market to lower City interest expense over the next 19 years??? Anybody feel the Mario Machine is practicing OPEN, ACCOUNTABLE and TRANSPARENT???
It must be an election year. Public Facilities’ trucks have been in my neighborhood this past week repairing roadways–repaving areas that had deteriorated over the last 6 years or so. Too bad we’re in a four-year mayoral cycle or this might get done more often.